There’s a foreign policy term called “escalation dominance.” It’s a strategic concept that refers to one party’s ability to increase the potential consequences in a conflict to a degree that leaves the adversary unable to respond or compete, forcing them to back down or admit defeat. The recent showcase showdown between Rep. James Comer on the House Oversight Committee and Bill and Hillary Clinton over a subpoena requiring the Clintons to testify is a good example of escalation dominance in action: Last week, the Clintons finally caved and agreed to appear before the Committee in order to avoid a vote by the full House on a motion to hold them in contempt. It certainly appears as though the Clintons have blinked. But in doing so, they may have actually gained escalation dominance in this ongoing battle in a way that Comer wasn’t anticipating.

Since there is…a lot…happening on the Epstein front, let’s do a quick recap of how we got to this point. Last August, Rep. Comer subpoenaed ten individuals to testify to the committee regarding their knowledge and involvement with Jeffrey Epstein. The list was basically a who’s who of Trump’s personal enemies list: In addition to the Clintons, it included James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Merrick Garland, Robert Mueller, Eric Holder, Bill Barr, Jeff Sessions, and Alberto Gonzales. Since then, according to a letter written to Comer by the Clintons, Comer dismissed seven of those subpoenas. To date, the Committee has only heard from former Attorney General Bill Barr, as well as one person not on the list, U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta (who negotiated Epstein’s non-prosecution agreement in 2008), both of whom testified in closed-door hearings.

It’s worth remembering that at the time these subpoenas were issued, and even when Barr and Acosta testified (in August and September, respectively), the Epstein files had not yet been released, and it was unclear if the legislation requiring their release  was even going to pass. There were some salacious dribs and drabs released from Epstein’s estate which made the news cycle, but the documents in the Justice Department’s possession were still under lock and key – and Trump very clearly wanted to keep it that way. That’s important because it created a relatively large information vacuum in which Comer had the power to shape narratives in Trump’s favor by focusing on Democrats and others who had crossed him as the primary “culprits” associated with Epstein.

It also looked like the Clintons were going to fight the subpoenas. For months after the subpoenas were issued, the Clintons’ lawyers attempted to negotiate with Comer’s Committee by providing sworn statements. When those did not suffice, their lawyers sent a letter contesting the legal basis for the subpoenas, arguing that they were untethered to any legislative purposes, designed to harass and embarrass them, and a violation of the separation of powers. The Clintons also sent their own letter directly to Comer, adding that they had “had enough.” Their apparent defiance put them on a course to deliver to Trump exactly what he has wanted: a contempt finding by Congress would be in the hands of the Justice Department to prosecute, and— in light of the indictments Attorney General Pam Bondi has chosen to bring over the last six months—-it was pretty clear that this is where it was headed. 

In short, Comer had escalation dominance: He had the power to set the wheels of the criminal justice system in motion if the Clintons didn’t testify. It appears he was counting on that being the end game, because both he and Trump seem to find themselves off-balance by the Clintons’ sudden decision to testify, and, in particular, their calls to do so in public. Comer is now awkwardly arguing that the Clintons requesting a public hearing is “playing the victim card.”Meanwhile, Trump claims that he’s “bothered” that “somebody’s going after Bill Clinton,” adding that he still likes him. Record scratch – what? 

The about-face makes sense when you think in terms of escalation dominance. For one thing, by agreeing to testify, the Clintons effectively neutralized any criminal case against them even if they continue to haggle on the details-–since criminal contempt of Congress requires that the defiance of Congress be “willful.” So Comer’s main leverage is off the table. (He’s saying contempt is “still on the table,” the congressional equivalent of trying to make “fetch” happen.) In addition, since Comer issued his subpoenas last August, the information landscape has changed with the passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act in November. It’s noteworthy that the Clintons changed their position in the wake of the January 30 dump of a tranche of 3.5 million files, in which Trump is named or referenced in 5,300 documents, according to the New York Times. Ruh-roh! It sounds like it finally dawned on Trump that maybe hauling in a former president to explain their actions to Congress might not be the best precedent to set.

Indeed, with the redactions in the recent document dump that seem designed to protect powerful people – something the Epstein Files Transparency Act explicitly prohibits – there are only more questions about what the Trump administration is hiding. Comer refusing to let the Clintons testify publicly only adds fuel to this fire. Perhaps in finally agreeing to testify, the Clintons capitulated, believing the stonewalling would only make it worse for them. Or perhaps they realized over the last week that they finally have the upper hand.